Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Bible verses that bug me: Part 1 - Jesus and the Pigs
We in the atheist community often hear the phrase, "Why are you attacking Christianity? Why not go after Islam?" The reason, as has been stated many times before, is that in America, Christianity is the dominant religion and our public and private lives are dominated by its practice. This series, as long as it lasts, will go through some of the things in the Christian Bible that bother me.
We start with Jesus and the Pigs. Mark 5 verses 1-20. Here's the relevant text from the NIV (New International Version)(more below the fold):
They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet.
No one was strong enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones. When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"
Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.
Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed.
-----------------------------
Most Christians take this story as a miracle. This story, in particular, is not told as a parable but as an actual historical event in the Bible. My argument is that this story is not a miracle but a travesty. Let me take for granted the fact that Jesus came across a man who was possesed by demons, or as the text states, an evil spirit and their names are legion. Jesus then casts those demons out. Here's where I have a problem. Jesus casts those spiritis out in to two THOUSAND pigs. Now, Jesus is a good Jew, so pork is off limits. So, to Jesus, casting demons in to pigs isn't a big deal. Right? I mean, pigs, what good are they? If you're Jewish you can't eat them or use their parts for sausage so...
But really, what does this "miracle" imply? What is says to me is that a pig farmer and likely his extended family got screwed by Jesus. 1 dude was saved from demons...1, possibly large family was denied their livelyhood. At the very least 1 pig farmer was ruined while one other person was freed of demons. It doesn't seem like a fair trade to me. At worst, 1 dude was saved, and a whole family, (or families) were ruined because the herd of 2000 pigs that they tended were slaughtered to save 1 guy. Really? This is a positive story in the Bible? I say, "That's shitty."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Did it ever occur to you...
Did it ever occur to anyone that Jesus may have helped out the family of the pig owner after the story? I mean, the bible doesn't have to spell out every event that happened or it would be much bigger. What is included would be the things that matter to the message being conveyed, but much more happened, we're sure, than what is stated in any historical (or fictional) book. It's called economy of language. So, for all we know, jesus slipped the pig owner a tenspot and he was happier than he'd been with 2000 pigs. Sorry, seems like a bit of a molehill-embellishment here.
Jesus and the Pigs
Great post. I find it amazing that after 2000 years, the Bible is still being talked about. I'm trying to learn a little about the Atheist. As far as Christianity is concerned, the story makes perfect sense. Jesus has come to restore humanity to its proper state. Jesus obviously sees the worth of one man holding greater value than 2000 pigs (which, were probably owned by the Roman government so don't feel to bad for the 'pig farmers.' Have you ever felt bad for any government employee?...don't answer that). It's also interesting to me that the story states that the "evil spirits" request permission to go into the pigs and not out of the country. To the Christian, this is simply showing 'evils' intent. It's goal is to destroy, just like it was doing to the man of the tombs. My question is this: forget about 'The Bible,' to the atheist, is there greater value found in humans than animals (pigs)? How would an atheist talk about evil? Does it even exist? How would an atheist, if at all, speak about 'restoration?' Again, I'm trying to learn more about Atheism. Thanks in advance.
"The Atheist"? Hmm.
This is just me talking, you understand. I'm not claiming to represent anyone else, here or otherwise. But:
To be humans, we humans pretty much have to care more about members of our own species than we do about "animals." To be GOOD humans, we have to exercise our innate trait of compassion -- which means we don't kill or torment animals just on an idle whim.
Good human compassion demands that we defend the defenseless. A lot of times, the defenseless are animals, and the thing we're defending them against is other humans, people who don't recognize the value of compassion.
For instance: If you saw a man beating a dog or a donkey with a stick, the proper thing to do in that moment would be to wade in and show him what it feels like. And then do your best to help the animal, and make sure the man could never do it again. Probably even a child would understand this. Taking a whack or two at this abuser (or having him arrested) is not "valuing the animal over the man," it's valuing the humanity that we should all aspire to, and which that man betrayed.
My own feeling is that animals have rights -- innate value that we humans should recognize and accept. Not just so we can treat the animals well, but so we can be the best humans we can be.
Unfortunately, to ask "is there greater value in humans than animals" is to compress a complex subject down into a juvenile either-or dichotomy. And the subject is just a lot more complex than that. That old biblical saw about having dominion over the animals and the earth is Stone Age crap that, these days, only extreme simpletons should believe.
Yes, we eat animals -- it's part of our evolutionary nature. But we don't kill them unnecessarily. We don't eat them alive, or torture them to death. And hopefully, we don't let others do those things either.
Evil, in my opinion, exists in the actions of people who have the capacity for compassion and fairness, those who were raised in a society that understands and values the traits, but who refuse to use it, and grow fat on the pain and suffering of others. Those who know what they're doing and do it anyway. Dick Cheney, for instance, is an evil man.
I have no idea what "restoration" means.
....
And by the way, you're not kidding anyone that you're only trying to learn more about "the atheist." Three-fourths of what you wrote there was preaching. "I find it amazing that after 2,000 years, the Bible is still being talked about." Argh.
Don't pretend you're engaged in some honest quest to learn more. You're here to convert people, and it shows.
Hmm?
Thanks for the response. You said, "Unfortunately, to ask "is there greater value in humans than animals" is to compress a complex subject down into a juvenile either-or dichotomy. And the subject is just a lot more complex than that." Umm, isn't this a forum to actually go there and talk about that? Is it "more complex than that" or too complex to explain? Again, just curious what Atheists think.
Not trying to preach here or "convert" (speaking of having no idea what that means).
Question, you have a lot of "value" and "compassion" language. Who told you this? Who told you what compassion is, what to value, what's right or wrong, etc. Again, I know you're going to think this is 'preachy,' please don't. This is truly what I want to know about the Atheist. Sure, I believe in a god, not trying to hide that. But where does the atheist say this comes from? Thanks in advanced.
The Atheist?
Yeah, this is a place to talk about that. And it's not too complex to explain. The problem is that most of the time I do go to the trouble of explaining, I end up regretting it. Why? Because most of the nice just-curious Christians I've met online have turned out to be lying little jerks.
I like to think that nobody who reads what I write can miss the fact that, for the stuff I understand, I can explain myself pretty well. (I could write you a 2,000-word explanation about where compassion comes from, for instance — hell, I'm notorious for the length of my comments.) But if I pump out a 55-gallon drum of effort from my side, and the person I'm talking to matches it only with a teaspoonful of effort from his side, I feel cheated. A lot.
So, how about I make you an offer? I'll explain anything you like. But first, you show me you're worth my time:
Tell me something interesting and profound you yourself have learned in life, make it longer than a bumper sticker, and do it WITHOUT including God, Jesus, the Bible or Creation in the tale.
Otherwise, why should I bother? Speaking as an atheist, it's not my goal in life to help Christians understand things. Usually, the best I can hope for is just to keep them and their deadly certainty from crushing the life out of me and everybody like me.
Gotcha, great response. I
Gotcha, great response. I appreciate the honesty. Good point, will do.
This story cannot be accurately understood...
... if the reader does not possess an awareness of the eternal. That is to say, if one believes the world is strictly material, and does not recognize also the spiritual, then the questions above are naturally going to arise. Especially if one puts an equal of greater value on the material of this world than they do upon the spiritual.
If that is one's worldview... naturally, the loss of 2,000 (or "more than I can count") pigs... as well as the loss of a family's livestock or business... is going to strike as imbalanced to the "healing" of one man.
However, to understand this story... the reader must recognize that the redemption of one soul from the grip of evil is worth "more than I can count." It is far more valuable, in the scope of the eternal, than pigs or money.
Ironically - it is the material-minded citizens of a Greek area (by the way - it's in the Decapolis region - not a Jewish region - thus the pig farm) that say much of what has been said above... and they plead with Jesus to leave them alone.
What they missed is that their soul also was worth more than the pigs and the money they bemoaned losing... but because they did not have vision to see the eternal impact of what was going on, they preferred their sense of order and possessions over the chance to ...in effect... know God.
If vision is grounded to this earthly, temporal plain; so understanding will be. I think the real statement this story makes is simply... may you see.
Huh?
Hang on:
There. Fixed that for you.
Point....
....proven.
I Call Vjack's Law
yay!
That was great! Glad to see the law being applied so perfectly.
Proven?
My point was that the key words in what you wrote were meaningless, or next to it.
... awareness of the eternal ... spiritual ... redemption of one soul ... grip of evil ... scope of the eternal ... their soul ... vision to see the eternal impact ... know God ... earthly, temporal plain ...
You write in Christian jargon, a closeted, untranslated vocabulary, to an audience no longer familiar with it (if I ever was). And almost no meaning comes across.
The sentences are structured in a way that should make sense, but the words create weird holes in the structure that prevents any meaning being conveyed.
It's like those fantasy novels where the author creates an entire language of new words and sprinkles them liberally throughout the story. Even if you have a glossary at hand to look them up, it drags you out of the story each time, and the whole thing becomes less understandable and enjoyable.
In this case, one of the reasons I'm no longer familiar with Christian jargon is that I now demand that things MAKE SENSE. Not everywhere, but just in my own head. I'm no longer willing to pretend that I understand exactly what a person is trying to convey when someone says "ghost" or "god" ... or, even, sometimes, "energy."
I stopped pretending not because I don't want to understand, but because I DO. I want clarity.
So I'm asking: What did you just say?
Uh ...
... What?
I've spent a long, long time
I've spent a long, long time railing against Christianity, and this is one of the thinnest arguments from that point of view that I've come across, full of logical errors.
- You assume that these pigs were intended to feed people; they could have just as easily been intended for use as anything from leathermaking to feeding carnivorous domesticated animals. This is to say nothing of feeding non-Jewish slaves.
- You attempt, in the classic error of historical analysis, to attach modern value systems, knowledge, and ethics to a situation that occurred two thousand years ago.
- You treat "two thousand" as a census figure rather than an estimate or metaphor or what it almost certainly is: first-century shorthand for "more pigs than I can count while standing here."
- You assume that what is possible is limited to what can be reproduced by current technology, rejecting any notion of situations or entities - like demons and demonic possession - that fall outside your own personal experience.
- You fail to consider that this bit of anecdote may not - indeed almost certainly DOES not - include ancillary information; the pigs could have been replaced just as easily with a word, or compensated for, if one stipulates the divinity of Jesus in the first place.
- You fail to ask the most important question: what motivation or purpose would anyone living in the first century have for making up a story like this?
There's certainly nothing wrong with critically examining scripture and religion in general. Much of it is convoluted, contradictory, and filled from front to back with injunctions and 'laws' that are obviously the creations of men trying to control other men and clearly have little or nothing to do with demonstrating the mercy, compassion, or divinity of Jesus or God.
Putting aside the question of accuracy to the original texts - and there is not a credible historian or archaeologist, secular or religious, who will tell you that the correlation and fidelity of the Gospels as we know them is anything less than...well, miraculous when compared to what we have of other writing from the same period, and yes, I've asked many of them as the study and analysis of religion, especially Christianity, has been a lifelong hobby of mine (for the record: I consider myself agnostic) - there are any number of points of contention that one might look at and make a case for examining closer or even 'debunking,' if that's what you want to do.
However, this story, and your methods, are simply not a credible way to go about it. You've written a nice little blog article here; it's got a good little bit of snark, some wit, some humor, and a healthy skepticism - but you're asking the wrong questions, tackling the question too lightly to be taken seriously, and in your tone and focus seem to be just as ardently attached to your "religion" of non-religion as any fundamentalist cleric I've ever seen.
If one is to examine and criticize scripture and Christianity, then one must be willing to hold one's own beliefs to the same standards that one wishes to apply to his or her subject matter. Failure to do so is merely the flip side of the same self-serving coin of hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement that is the spark of so many of us who question the usefulness, accuracy, and ultimate truth of Christ and Christianity.
Or to quote an old hippie guy I once knew, "Before you remove the mote from your brother's eye, be sure to remove the beam from your own."
Best of luck to you. I see some potential for genuine scholarship and critical analysis here, and I hope you manage to get it sorted so you can start producing content of this nature that's not quite so easy to criticize itself.
Peace.
Response
Ok, I presumed it. So? Someone other than Jesus owned those pigs. They were the property of someone else and he killed them.
Again, So? It could have been 10 pigs and it still would have been wrong. Turns out, according to the Bible it was a lot. Whose argument is thin again?
I presume supernatural events are malarky for the same reason I don't believe in God. There's no credible evidence for them.
Again, you said my arguments were thin? The Bible doesn't say it happened..why would I presume? And I certainly can't stipulate divinity. If the pigs were replaced with a word that would have been another miracle that would have been mentioned. As another commenter pointed out, why use pigs at all if you stipulate divinity?
As for the rest of your comment...I do hold my own beliefs to the same standard. You just presume that I don't for reasons I don't understand. The Bible is supposed to be the guidebook for the Christian faith. It's supposed to be the divinely inspired word of God. I don't need to take in to account why this story would have been written or passed down to critique it from that aspect.
2000 pigs
Palestine has a substantial Gentile population at that time, so it isnt a surprise that someone would herd pigs for a living, but I think 2000 pigs is quite a lot for a single herdsman to, well, herd. This is probably one of those stories that got embellished in the process of being handed down.
And this is from someone who professes to be a Christian, and believes in all that Christian-y stuff. No explanation for the story from me, though. Sorry. There are a lot of stories in the Bible I have no explanations for.
A possible explanation
Like many people, this story puzzled me somewhat as a child (albeit more from the randomness than any theological argument). However, I have heard a reasonable explanation.
We are talking about a heard of pigs 2000 strong in a nation that is not supposed to have anything to do with pork. Does that not sound a little fishy to you?
My suspicion is that this was a case of killing two birds with one stone, getting rid of a demon, and also getting rid of the wealth of someone selling pork under false pretences.
I should stress that this is not something I present as a biblically ratifiable explanation, but more as what I feel is a reasonable explanation for what happened.
So
Doesn't fly for me. The Jews weren't allowed pork in their diets but they weren't the only people living in the area. So it's OK as long as it wasn't a Jewish business that was ruined?
Not only that, but can you imagine the cleanup involved? Someone likely had to go get those pigs out of the water....2000 rotting pigs in the water supply. Gross.
What? You thought the rules applied to everyone?
So you thought that the rules applied to everyone?
Hah!
The ten commandments, leviticus, etc. apply to people in your tribe/religion/group/whatever. Everyone else can be killed, coveted, whatever just fine.
Wars art a problem; thou shalt not kill doesn't apply to them.
Ciao!
So much for all-powerful...
As decrepitoldfool put it, I haven't seen a good explanation for this story from any source. Why does it take involving a herd of pigs to drive out a legion of demons? Invoking god's name isn't enough?
Between this story, the cursing of a fig tree, and his questionable fishing habits (where the thousands of fish come from anyway), Jesus proves he's not much of an environmentalist. Perhaps he really is a Republican...
More complicated - but still shitty
It's not the cost-benefit trade that is bad, per se. As a society, we often make decisions that there are moral considerations beyond merely the cost-benefit to specific individuals involved. If demons went around possessing people, and causing mayhem as a result, we might very well, as a society, chose to make great sacrifices to rid people of demons. We might spread that sacrifice across a lot of people for each person saved from demonic possession. That might be worthwhile. Depending on how it was done, it would probably be the moral thing to do.
BUT, in this story, Jesus does not consider things in this manner. He acts as a totalitarian government. He does not seek the permission of the farmer to use his pigs. He does not investigate the potential costs to the surrounding community that could result from a loss of so many pigs. He does not seek other solutions that might take longer, but not result in the loss of something valuable, like livestock. Were there no flocks of birds? Maybe an ant colony? No, he takes it upon himself to decide that those pigs, which were not his, and upon which people depended, were to be used for this purpose. The possessed man isn't even able to say if he wants the surrounding area to suffer so that he can be free. Maybe he'd rather protect his neighbors' livestock than ruin it for his own salvation.
On an unrelated note: what's up with putting the demons in pigs? Can't the son of god just banish them or something? Send them half-way around the world to inhabit some wild pigs? Take the legion of demons into himself, and contain them? THAT would be a cool story. Then after he's crucified, they come out and wreak havoc on the soldiers that strung him up. There's some good action-adventure.
But I digress.
Well anytime you have 2000 pigs...
...it's really shitty, but I digress. It is entertaining to watch Christian apologists twist themselves into knots trying to explain this one. I mean, 2000 pigs is a non-trivial asset even today. There were early methods of risk distribution even back then but who buys demon insurance?